You are here: / Contract Law
, ,

PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined that the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) limited the right to demand arbitration to the union and not the fired employee:

From the dissent:

The language of CBA clearly grants the employee the right to elect arbitration. Even were the agreement ambiguous in that regard, it must be construed in favor of the employee’s right to demand arbitration. New York has established a policy favoring arbitration … , and the CBA itself provides that “in order to establish a more harmonious and cooperative relationship between the County. . . and its [p]ublic [e]mployees. . . [t]he provisions of this resolution shall be liberally construed.”

The majority’s contrary interpretation — that the CBA gives the right to proceed to arbitration only to the union — would mean that the employee could “elect” to exercise “his/her rights” only where the union agrees to arbitrate — a restriction that does not appear in the agreement. The employee may not know at the time of election whether the union will pursue arbitration, and therefore could not know the scope of “his/her rights” until it is too late. Further, the rights-granting language in the CBA treats the arbitration right and the [Civil Service Law] 75 right in parallel, emphasizing the employee’s right to choose. Matter of Widrick (Carpinelli), 2018 NY Slip Op 04780, CtApp 6-28-18

​ARBITRATION (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))/CONTRACT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))/UNIONS (ARBITRATION, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))

, , , ,

IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a partial dissent, determined certain aspects of defendant Countrywide’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff insurer, Ambac, stemming from residential mortgage backed securities issued by Countrywide, were properly granted. Ambac’s argument that it need not demonstrate justifiable reliance or loss causation in support of its fraudulent inducement cause of action was rejected, as was Ambac’s argument that it was entitled to relief over and above that specified in the sole remedy clause, as well as attorney’s fees:

Public policy reasons support the justifiable reliance requirement. Where a “sophisticated business person or entity . . . claims to have been taken in,” the justifiable reliance rule “serves to rid the court of cases in which the claim of reliance is likely to be hypocritical” … . Excusing a sophisticated party such as a monoline financial guaranty insurer from demonstrating justifiable reliance would not further the policy underlying this “venerable rule.”

Likewise, there is no merit to Ambac’s argument that it need not show loss causation. Loss causation is a well-established requirement of a common law fraudulent inducement claim for damages. * * *

Ambac’s complaint fails to include breach of contract allegations beyond those that fall under the sole remedy provision … , and accordingly Ambac is limited to the repurchase protocol as the potential remedy for those claims. * * *

In New York, “the prevailing litigant ordinarily cannot collect . . . attorneys’ fees from its unsuccessful opponents. . . . Attorneys’ fees are treated as incidents of litigation, rather than damages. . . . The exception is when an award is authorized by agreement between the parties or by statute or court rule” … . … [T]his Court [has] held that a court “should not infer a party’s intention to waive the benefit of the rule unless the intention to do so is unmistakably clear from the language of the promise … . Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04686, CtApp 6-27-18

​INSURANCE LAW (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/FRAUD  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/CONTRACT LAW  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/SECURITIES  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/ATTORNEY’S FEES (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION OF FRAUD DID NOT DEFEAT THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the arbitration clause of the contract between plaintiffs and defendant was enforceable, despite the plaintiffs’ allegation of fraud in connection with the contract:

A party may not be compelled to arbitrate a dispute unless there is evidence which affirmatively establishes that the parties clearly, explicitly, and unequivocally agreed to arbitrate the dispute… . Under both federal and New York law, unless it can be established that there was a grand scheme to defraud which permeated the entire agreement, including the arbitration provision, a broadly worded arbitration provision will be deemed separate from the substantive contractual provisions, and the agreement to arbitrate may be valid despite the underlying allegation of fraud … .

The broad arbitration clause in the 2014 agreement, together with the other provisions of the 2014 agreement, demonstrate that the plaintiffs explicitly and unequivocally agreed to arbitrate the matters that are the subject of this action. In addition, the plaintiffs’ bare conclusory assertions of fraud failed to establish that any alleged fraud was part of a grand scheme that permeated the entire agreement, including the arbitration clause … . Zafar v Fast Track Leasing, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04774, Second Dept 6-27-18

ARBITRATION (CONTRACT LAW, FRAUD, PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION OF FRAUD DID NOT DEFEAT THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION, PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION OF FRAUD DID NOT DEFEAT THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (ARBITRATION, CONTRACT LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION OF FRAUD DID NOT DEFEAT THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT))

,

PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a detailed, comprehensive two-justice dissent, determined that a purported oral agreement to sell works of art by Peter Beard was barred by the statute of frauds. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the causes of action for declaration, conversion and replevin was properly granted. Plaintiff Peter Beard was properly declared to be the sole owner of the art works. The dissent includes a detailed rendition of the facts which is not summarized here:

The motion court correctly found that the works of art at issue were goods, and thus that the purported oral agreement to sell them was barred by the statute of frauds (see UCC 2-201…). Defendants’ wire transfers to a third party, who then purportedly remitted the funds to plaintiffs, were not unequivocally referable to the agreement alleged, such as to deem the agreement partially completed and outside the statute of frauds … . Alternative explanations, including that the funds were for financing other projects involving the third party, defeat such claims … . Beard v Chase, 2018 NY Slip Op 04636, First Dept 6-21-18

​CONTRACT LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/ORAL CONTRACTS (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (ORAL CONTRACT, PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/ART WORKS (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/UCC  (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO ALLOW AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE OR INDUCEMENT (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department determined the relationship between plaintiff and defendant (Trovato) was not close enough to allow an unjust enrichment suit. Plaintiff had paid for shares in a corporation which were later sold to defendant. Plaintiff alleged the price paid by defendant was reduced by the amount plaintiff had already paid:

To recover for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant was enriched, (2) at the plaintiff’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered… . “Although privity is not required for an unjust enrichment claim, a claim will not be supported if the connection between the parties is too attenuated” … . The relationship must be one that could have caused reliance or inducement … . Here, the defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff and Trovato did not have a relationship that could have caused reliance or inducement on the plaintiff’s part. Crescimanni v Trovato, 2018 NY Slip Op 04529, Second Dept 6-20-28

​UNJUST ENRICHMENT (THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO ALLOW AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE OR INDUCEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVITY (UNJUST ENRICHMENT, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO ALLOW AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE OR INDUCEMENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the continuing wrong doctrine operated to toll the statute of limitations in this breach of contract/breach of warranty of habitability action involving damage to plaintiff’s cooperative apartment during a 2004 renovation. Plaintiff alleged the damage had never been repaired and brought his action in 2016. The Second Department held that the continuing wrong doctrine tolled the statute of limitations but damages were recoverable for only the six years preceding the commencement of the action:

The continuing wrong doctrine “is usually employed where there is a series of continuing wrongs and serves to toll the running of a period of limitations to the date of the commission of the last wrongful act” … . “In contract actions, the doctrine is applied to extend the statute of limitations when the contract imposes a continuing duty on the breaching party” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that the damage to his unit persisted and had not been repaired, and that such breach constituted a continuing breach of the defendants’ contractual duty to keep the building in good repair and to provide habitable premises … . However, where, as here, the sole remedy sought for the alleged continuing contractual breaches is monetary damages, the plaintiff’s recovery must be limited to damages incurred within the six years prior to commencement of the action … . Garron v Bristol House, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04533, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CONTRACT LAW (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/COOPERATIVES (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/HABITABILITY, WARRANTY OF  (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined New York’s borrowing statute, CPLR 202, applied to a contract with a Canadian company in which the parties agreed the contract would be “enforced” according to New York law. The borrowing statute required that Ontario’s two-year statute of limitations controlled and the action was untimely:

The [agreement] contained the following choice-of-law provision: “This Agreement shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.” * * *

​CPLR 202 provides: “An action based upon a cause of action accruing without the state cannot be commenced after the expiration of the time limited by the laws of either the state or the place without the state where the cause of action accrued, except that where the cause of action accrued in favor of a resident of the state the time limited by the laws of the state shall apply.” * * *

​Plaintiff argues that because the contract in this case specified that it would be “enforced” according to New York law, the parties intended to apply New York’s procedural law except for its statutory choice-of-law provisions, which, plaintiff alleges, includes CPLR 202. We conclude, however, that the mere addition of the word “enforced” to the [agreement’s] choice-of-law provision does not demonstrate the intent of the contracting parties to apply solely New York’s six-year statute of limitations in CPLR 213 (2) to the exclusion of CPLR 202. Rather, the parties have agreed that the use of the word “enforced” evinces the parties’ intent to apply New York’s procedural law. CPLR 202 is part of that procedural law, and the statute therefore applies here. 2138747 Ontario, Inc. v Samsung C&T Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04274, CtApp 6-12-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEW YORK’S  BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP))/CPLR 202 (NEW YORK’S  BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP))/CONTRACT (CHOICE OF LAW, NEW YORK’S  BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP))/CHOICE OF LAW (CONTRACT LAW, (NEW YORK’S  BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP))/BORROWING STATUTE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEW YORK’S  BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (NEW YORK’S  BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP))

,

DATE OF LOSS DEEMED TO BE DATE THE CLAIM FOR A STOLEN CAR WAS DENIED, NOT THE DATE THE CAR WAS STOLEN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the term “date of loss” in the policy referred to the date the insurer disclaimed coverage, not the date the car was stolen. Therefore plaintiff’s action for breach of contract was timely. The contract properly shortened the applicable statute of limitations to one year:

In our view, the generic “date of loss” language employed here, in the context of the policy as a whole, does not evince an unmistakable intention that the one-year limitations period be measured from the occurrence of the underlying event … . Significantly, in shortening the limitations period, the insurance policy did not use the term of art “inception of loss” or other similarly specific language indicating that the limitations period was to be measured from the event giving rise to the claim … . Moreover, although “date of loss” could be reasonably interpreted to mean the date of theft, as defendant contends, ambiguities in an insurance policy must be construed against the insurer … . In view of the foregoing, we hold that the one-year limitations period set forth in the insurance policy began to run on the date that defendant denied the claim for coverage … . Mercedes-Benz Fin. Servs. USA, LLC v Allstate Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 04064, Third Dept 6-7-18

INSURANCE LAW (DATE OF LOSS DEEMED TO BE DATE THE CLAIM FOR A STOLEN CAR WAS DENIED, NOT THE DATE THE CAR WAS STOLEN (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, DATE OF LOSS DEEMED TO BE DATE THE CLAIM FOR A STOLEN CAR WAS DENIED, NOT THE DATE THE CAR WAS STOLEN (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

PROVISION OF THE EDUCATION LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE OVER ALLEGEDLY FAILING SCHOOLS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a complex decision not fully summarized here, determined the provision of the Education Law which allows the appointment of a receiver to take over allegedly failing schools does not violate the Contract Clause of the US Constitution:

… [W]here a statute or regulation impairs a private contract, courts will defer to a legislature’s rationale with regard to its necessity … . Less deference is warranted where the statute or regulation “is self-serving and impairs the obligations of [the state’s] own contracts” because “a [s]tate is not completely free to consider impairing the obligations of its own contracts on a par with other policy alternatives” … . Less deference may be warranted even where, as here, the state is not a party to an impaired public contract … . “[F]or an impairment to be reasonable and necessary under less deference scrutiny, it must be shown that the state did not (1) consider impairing the contracts on par with other policy alternatives or (2) impose a drastic impairment when an evident and more moderate course would serve its purpose equally well nor (3) act unreasonably in light of the surrounding circumstances” … .

Assuming without deciding that the less deferential standard applies, we find that Education Law § 211-f (8) is reasonable and necessary both on its face and as applied. In context, the receivership agreement was necessary in order to implement available methods to address the immediate issues that were facing the struggling or persistent struggling schools. The statute provides that the Superintendent must act in accordance with the existing CBA [collective bargaining agreement], and, where, as here, a receivership agreement is requested, the statute limits the scope of the agreement — and impairment. No modification or impairment can be unilaterally imposed but instead must be negotiated. As applied, although an agreement was not reached with regard to all issues, the modifications imposed were applicable to the affected schools only for the time limited by the statute. In sum, because the statute and the agreements apply prospectively and limit the scope, application and duration of any modifications to existing agreements, while prohibiting any adverse financial impact, we find that it was reasonably designed and necessary to further the goal of helping students to succeed … . Matter of Buffalo Teachers Fedn., Inc. v Elia, 2018 NY Slip Op 04061, Third Dept 6-7-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (PROVISION OF THE EDUCATION LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE OVER ALLEGEDLY FAILING SCHOOLS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PROVISION OF THE EDUCATION LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE OVER ALLEGEDLY FAILING SCHOOLS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CONTRACT LAW, PROVISION OF THE EDUCATION LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE OVER ALLEGEDLY FAILING SCHOOLS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT))/FAILING SCHOOLS (PROVISION OF THE EDUCATION LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE OVER ALLEGEDLY FAILING SCHOOLS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT))/RECEIVERS (FAILING SCHOOLS, (PROVISION OF THE EDUCATION LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE OVER ALLEGEDLY FAILING SCHOOLS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ORAL CONTRACT WAS FORMED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether there was an oral contract for dock space for and storage of plaintiff’s boat at defendant marina:

… [P]laintiff submitted a copy of an invoice from defendant that itemized the charges for winter storage and spring launch and showed that no balance was due in April 2008. The invoice also acknowledged receipt of a $500 payment from plaintiff on April 14, 2008 for a monthly slip charge. Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit in which he averred that the $500 payment accepted by defendant is evidence that the parties entered into an oral agreement for rental of dock space for the 2008 boating season. The facts alleged in plaintiff’s affidavit are consistent with his deposition testimony, which was submitted by defendant, in which he claimed that he made an oral agreement with defendant’s employee. Plaintiff’s argument that the oral agreement was consistent with the parties’ prior dealings because he had entered into a written agreement for only one season during his long period of occupancy is corroborated by [defendant’s] allegation that “[o]ver the years[, plaintiff] refused to sign any license agreement.” When viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the nonmoving party … , plaintiff’s submissions are sufficient to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact regarding formation of an oral contract. Carroll v Rondout Yacht Basin, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04051, Third Dept 6-7-18

​CONTRACT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ORAL CONTRACT WAS FORMED (THIRD DEPT))/ORAL CONTRACTS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ORAL CONTRACT WAS FORMED (THIRD DEPT))

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy